Note the ELO ranking is an iterative scoring system which means that every time you debate your rank is adjusted based on your performance. Every participant had the option to pick their starting rank or having it generated at a seed value. This really does not matter in the long term, if the starting values are too far off it would just generate huge corrections immediately.

The starting ranks were :

CiRrk : 1500Phoenix_Reaper : 850

after corrections based on the vote :

CiRrK : 1478Phoenix_Reaper : 851

Now here is the interesting thing about ELO. Lets assume that a strong debater like Merda is debating a new member who is starting debate, if the ranks are for example 1250 vs 500 then Merda can not simply win in order to maintain his rank, he would have to literally dominate with all straight 7:0. This is shown in the above as even though Phoenix_Reaper lost the vote, because he was debating against a very strong opponent, even a small partial score in his favor will advance his rank.

Long story short, it is not an advantage to try to look forward to newb snipes in ELO ranked matches and if you are a beginner then it is really an advantage to look forward to high ranked opponents because you will consistently advance as long as you make a decent showing, The simplest way to understand it is that your ranking will increase even if you "place" you don't need to the Gold.

More people have joined since this match which is a good thing, remember this is an open tournament and you can join at any time. You can also retire at any time and be taken off of the active list of opponents.

Note the ELO ranking is an iterative scoring system which means that every time you debate your rank is adjusted based on your performance. Every participant had the option to pick their starting rank or having it generated at a seed value. This really does not matter in the long term, if the starting values are too far off it would just generate huge corrections immediately.

The starting ranks were :

CiRrk : 1500Phoenix_Reaper : 850

after corrections based on the vote :

CiRrK : 1478Phoenix_Reaper : 851

Now here is the interesting thing about ELO. Lets assume that a strong debater like Merda is debating a new member who is starting debate, if the ranks are for example 1250 vs 500 then Merda can not simply win in order to maintain his rank, he would have to literally dominate with all straight 7:0. This is shown in the above as even though Phoenix_Reaper lost the vote, because he was debating against a very strong opponent, even a small partial score in his favor will advance his rank.

Long story short, it is not an advantage to try to look forward to newb snipes in ELO ranked matches and if you are a beginner then it is really an advantage to look forward to high ranked opponents because you will consistently advance as long as you make a decent showing, The simplest way to understand it is that your ranking will increase even if you "place" you don't need to the Gold.

More people have joined since this match which is a good thing, remember this is an open tournament and you can join at any time. You can also retire at any time and be taken off of the active list of opponents.

that's not like any elo rating system i've ever seen. at least if i'm thinking about the right thing. looks fun though :)

that's not like any elo rating system i've ever seen. at least if i'm thinking about the right thing. looks fun though :)

The only real difference is that I start with seed values, you normally would start at 100 but that is not practical here. The k-factor is 50 currently, I will keep it high until the values start to stabilize.

Do you want to join? Note this is not a tournament where you pick your opponent or the topic. You can submit a list of topics but they are picked at random. You then create an open challenge and anyone can accept. One of the main points of this tournament is to create meaningful ranks of true debate skill because you have to be able to debate across a wide number of topics and take differing positions.

At 6/11/2011 8:16:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:It sounds interesting, but it seems if this doesn't gain momentum, the ELO tournament will not work.

Note there is always one debate in argument and once debate challenge being formed or in open challenge. Since the debates are only 4 round/4000 words there should be at least one debate per week, more if people debate quickly.

Anyways, how do you score people initially?

People can pick their own starting values (500 to 1500) or I will pick them based on my judgment and a RNG seed modification. Note there is no value in picking a value which is massively different from your real value. For example if you are about a 1000 and you pick yourself at 1500 then all that will happen is that your rank will drop swiftly as you debate.

Do you want to join? Note this is not a tournament where you pick your opponent or the topic. You can submit a list of topics but they are picked at random. You then create an open challenge and anyone can accept. One of the main points of this tournament is to create meaningful ranks of true debate skill because you have to be able to debate across a wide number of topics and take differing positions.

Why shouldn't you pick your opponent?

Also, note Cirrk shouldn't have gotten bumped down. The only point against him was YOURS (you always seem to give 1 point to the losing side if you feel bad for them). It is almost impossible to get a perfect score.

that's not like any elo rating system i've ever seen. at least if i'm thinking about the right thing. looks fun though :)

The only real difference is that I start with seed values, you normally would start at 100 but that is not practical here. The k-factor is 50 currently, I will keep it high until the values start to stabilize.

i was thinking of elo as a way that didn't have incentive not to debate noobs (if you knew you'd win) but didn't grant too much incentive to do so either.. so i was thinking of the wrong thing then. nice difference.

Because it allows you to artificially inflate your ranking. I could for example avoid CiRrK and only concentrate on people who I had a high probability to win.

Also, note Cirrk shouldn't have gotten bumped down. The only point against him was YOURS

My point for Phoenix didn't influence CiRrK's rank. In fact I gave CiRrK one of the highest possible scores, 6/7. The point I gave for Phoenix only increased his rank specifically.

It is almost impossible to get a perfect score.

You would not expect a perfect score unless the opponents are heavily mismatched. This again is deliberate, it is a strong incentive not to try to newb-snipe as it is actually can be harder to increase your rank against a seriously lower ranked opponent than once close to you in rank.

(you always seem to give 1 point to the losing side if you feel bad for them).

I voted 2:1 here, mainly an argument vote. Now I gave 2 pt to win on argument as while I felt Con was able to advance their own argument more and could refute the points raised by Pro, easily handling the "best possible worlds" for example. The argument was not nearly strong enough to make a 3 which would be an argument from unitedandy for example. I gave Pro a 1 on arguments as he was able to bring forth the standard arguments, so it showed that he was informed on the subject - but he was not original in his approach and could not defend them fully against Con and in fact dropped some and advanced others later in the rounds.

I do have a bit of a bias for complete new members, especially if they are young/inexperienced and will often give them 1-2 points on argument if they have made at least a decent effort. In that case all I want is to see them actually make an argument and not just assertions and try to hang in there, especially if they are taking on a very heavy hitter like Grape, CiRrk, The Kenyon, etc. .

i was thinking of elo as a way that didn't have incentive not to debate noobs (if you knew you'd win) but didn't grant too much incentive to do so either.. so i was thinking of the wrong thing then. nice difference.

I have made a change from the standard calculation which is that a true win of 1 means you have to get all 7 points. If I set a win was just point dominance then it would encourage newb-snipes.

And before anyone feels to sorry for CiRrk, he is one of the stronger debaters on DDO and can debate solid across a very wide topic board. His rank is going to go well above 1500, especially if he gets more free time and starts aggressively accepting the open challenges.

I don't want to prevent debates which are not selected at random for many reasons but please keep in mind the nature of format and its intention. If participants wish to engage outside of the selected debates then just send me a PM with a link to the debate so I can keep that in mind when generating new ones as I want to keep a steady flow of debates. With this in mind, let Merda's debate finish and headphoneguts at least get accepted before starting yours. Again all the debates have mandatory voting so I don't want to cluster them.

I need a PM with your starting rank pick one and add a RND seed), and a list of topics you would like to see debated.

Note you can at any time accept any ELO debate, being added to the ELO debaters just means you are willing to defend a random topic and thus prove that your rank is indicative of a general debate skill and not just a well developed argument in a few select areas.

There are only a few semi-rules :

-voting period is two weeks (there is mandatory voting for all active ELO members)-debates are 4000 words/4 rounds

Keep in mind the second and first go together for a reason as mandatory voting on a 5 round / 8000 word exchange can be a bit harsh.